Opinion
2013-11-7
In the Matter of the Claim of Maria BEDNAREK, Respondent, v. CARING PROFESSIONALS INC. et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Jones Jones LLC, New York City (M. Carmel Corcoran of counsel), for appellants. *302Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Jones Jones LLC, New York City (M. Carmel Corcoran of counsel), for appellants. *302Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ.
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 6, 2012, which ruled that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.
Claimant was employed as a home attendant for the elderly and, on the day in question, worked two shifts with different clients. She fell and was injured while walking from the first client's residence to the second client's residence, and applied for workers' compensation benefits. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. A divided panel of the Workers' Compensation Board agreed, prompting the employer and its workers' compensation carrier to seek full Board review as of right ( seeWorkers' Compensation Law § 23). The full Board affirmed, and the employer and carrier appeal.
We affirm. While “injuries sustained during travel to and from the place of employment” are generally not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an outside employee “who does not have a fixed worksite[ ] may be compensated for injuries sustained in the course of” work-related travel (Matter of Neacosia v. New York Power Auth., 85 N.Y.2d 471, 475, 626 N.Y.S.2d 44, 649 N.E.2d 1188 [1995] ). The employer and carrier contend that claimant was not an outside employee, but “[t]he distinguishing feature of outside employees is that they do not work at a fixed location and are required to travel between work locations” (Matter of Bobinis v. State Ins. Fund, 235 A.D.2d 955, 956, 653 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1997];see Matter of Bennett v. Marine Works, Inc., 273 N.Y. 429, 431, 7 N.E.2d 847 [1937] ). The employer here assigned claimant to care for two clients in different locations and, thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that she “became an outside employee when [s]he left” one work site and proceeded to another (Matter of Marciniak v. Berlitz School of Languages, 43 A.D.2d 509, 512, 353 N.Y.S.2d 536 [1974],appeal dismissed34 N.Y.2d 843, 359 N.Y.S.2d 64, 316 N.E.2d 345 [1974];see Matter of Greene v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs., 44 N.Y.2d 322, 325, 405 N.Y.S.2d 645, 376 N.E.2d 1291 [1978];Matter of Egloff v. Ob–Gyn Assoc. of N. N.Y., 245 A.D.2d 965, 966, 667 N.Y.S.2d 116 [1997] ).
The remaining contentions of the employer and carrier have been examined and found to lack merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.